New Graphics Card

[Kk4S-HaVoK]

heloo

ive got the choice of one of these cards the only prob is it HAS to be one of these but i honestly aint got a clue which to choose


1. 128Mb Geforce FX5200 AGP + TV 8x AGP
*soz this is all the info i got*
2. 128Mb Radeon 9200 DVI + TV 8x AGP

i want it to be able to handle the real powerfull games out know and dvd's avi's etc it will be supported by a 2.6 athlon xp and 512 ddr 400

does anyone know which is better i normally would choose the geforce but ive noticed loads of things about radeon

cheers

[raiserblade2003]

Originally posted by Kk4S-HaVoK@18 December 2003 - 18:34
heloo

ive got the choice of one of these cards the only prob is it HAS to be one of these but i honestly aint got a clue which to choose


1. 128Mb Geforce FX5200 AGP + TV 8x AGP
*soz this is all the info i got*
2. 128Mb Radeon 9200 DVI + TV 8x AGP

i want it to be able to handle the real powerfull games out know and dvd's avi's etc it will be supported by a 2.6 athlon xp and 512 ddr 400

does anyone know which is better i normally would choose the geforce but ive noticed loads of things about radeon

cheers
you want those two &#036;60 card to " handle the real powerfull games out" <_< those card are about as good as the redone mx440 8x 128mb.....but if its between those 2, i choose 5200 becuz of dx9 support and 5200 has faster core....or is it memory

[DarthInsinuate]

the Geforce FX5200 is slightly faster, and has DX9 features

but neither of those cards will go anywhere fast

[Kk4S-HaVoK]

i will not bother
thankyou

[raiserblade2003]

you could get a fx5600 non ultra though...my friend has one and he play halo on 1024x768 w/ med-high setting and get over 60fps constantly....drop to 40 in intense firefight but preety good for a 100 dollars card

[YouSycophant]

lol raiser your helpin me in my vid card thread and this guy too, your jsut a helpful person arent you

[raiserblade2003]

Originally posted by YouSycophant@19 December 2003 - 18:42
lol raiser your helpin me in my vid card thread and this guy too, your jsut a helpful person arent you
lol yea, but really you ppl should start to look at least a cople post down b4 posting a question....i said this for gameworld 2....lazy bum :P

[lynx]

Originally posted by raiserblade2003@19 December 2003 - 15:59
you could get a fx5600 non ultra though...my friend has one and he play halo on 1024x768 w/ med-high setting and get over 60fps constantly....drop to 40 in intense firefight but preety good for a 100 dollars card
I&#39;m confused.

Why would you want 60fps?
Your eyes can&#39;t detect changes faster than about 12fps, although you need to go up to about 25fps so prevent strobing. Anything above that is wasted.

I&#39;ve just got a fx5200, it works fine at 1024x768 in PoP and CoD, with high settings. I get the feeling that people are far too worried about statistics and not enough about how the thing actually looks.

I&#39;m not going to bother doing any benchmark tests on it - who the heck cares what the numbers are - if it works ok with high settings then that&#39;s fine for me. If I have to drop some of the settings to medium, that&#39;s probably also fine, but so far I haven&#39;t needed to.

[raiserblade2003]

Originally posted by lynx+19 December 2003 - 19:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx &#064; 19 December 2003 - 19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-raiserblade2003@19 December 2003 - 15:59
you could get a fx5600 non ultra though...my friend has one and he play halo on 1024x768 w/ med-high setting and get over 60fps constantly....drop to 40 in intense firefight but preety good for a 100 dollars card
I&#39;m confused.

Why would you want 60fps?
Your eyes can&#39;t detect changes faster than about 12fps, although you need to go up to about 25fps so prevent strobing. Anything above that is wasted.

I&#39;ve just got a fx5200, it works fine at 1024x768 in PoP and CoD, with high settings. I get the feeling that people are far too worried about statistics and not enough about how the thing actually looks.

I&#39;m not going to bother doing any benchmark tests on it - who the heck cares what the numbers are - if it works ok with high settings then that&#39;s fine for me. If I have to drop some of the settings to medium, that&#39;s probably also fine, but so far I haven&#39;t needed to. [/b][/quote]
25fps? anything below 30 is pretty choppy. if its getting 30fps on games like Cod then its not gonna last very long is it. ppl care about fps becuz they want to know how the card is gonna fare vs newer and more demandin games...i mean if its playable in cs and u get 30 something fps....how is that gonna do on a game like bf1942.

i know above 60 is a waste, heck above 50 is but thats just for headroom....if u get in any intense firefight or go through some smoke, etc the fps is gonna drop so u want to have it somewher in the 55+ range in case it drop, its still playable

[lynx]

Below 30fps is choppy?

Perhaps you didn&#39;t understand my post: the human eye is incapable of detecting changes more than about 12 times per second.

However, I also noticed that you reckon you are getting far better rates than the pro testers. When YOUR rate falls below 30fps, theirs would probably fall to about 10fps. If their rates are the correct ones it would indeed be getting choppy at that level.

I didn&#39;t say I was getting 30fps in CoD, I said it was perfectly ok. I also said that since it is ok I&#39;m not going to bother looking at what rate it is, since it would be a pure waste of time.

[DWk]

Originally posted by lynx@19 December 2003 - 12:48
it works fine at 1024x768 in CoD, with high settings
my card can do that 2 :)

actually, the quake engine is the best over all games..... thats why games like pop and the newest games cant be played on our "low-end" cards, but games with really nice gfx and "new" ones...such as CoD (or even Enemy Territory)

can be easily played with mx cards :D

[raiserblade2003]

Originally posted by lynx@19 December 2003 - 21:13
Below 30fps is choppy?

Perhaps you didn&#39;t understand my post: the human eye is incapable of detecting changes more than about 12 times per second.
i saw it.......have you try playing a game w/ 12fps

okay let me rephrase.....any thing under 30fps is not very enjoyable, especially first person shooter

[lynx]

@raiserblade2003: I owe you an apology - see my post about my new card/drivers.

[raiserblade2003]

Originally posted by lynx@19 December 2003 - 22:37
@raiserblade2003: I owe you an apology - see my post about my new card/drivers.
theres nothing to apologies for?....but seriously, what are u appologizing(that dont look right) for? read the other thread and....HUH? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[lynx]

What it appears to do with the bad drivers is give a lot of output, then stop and think while it builds the next frames, then give a lot of output again. This gives the choppy appearance you were talking about.

So I was wrong when I said you couldn&#39;t see choppiness at 30fps - if your drivers are doing the same sort of thing you may well be seeing that effect. So what you may be getting is 32fps for 7/8 of a second, then a 1/8 second pause. That averages out at 28fps, but would give the choppy appearance.

[raiserblade2003]

Originally posted by lynx@19 December 2003 - 22:53
What it appears to do with the bad drivers is give a lot of output, then stop and think while it builds the next frames, then give a lot of output again. This gives the choppy appearance you were talking about.

So I was wrong when I said you couldn&#39;t see choppiness at 30fps - if your drivers are doing the same sort of thing you may well be seeing that effect. So what you may be getting is 32fps for 7/8 of a second, then a 1/8 second pause. That averages out at 28fps, but would give the choppy appearance.
ohh........see i told u so :P :lol: :lol: :lol: